Ugh... Now THIS is a hot item for the EU nowadays.
For those not following this or not having heard of it, let me get you the run down:
The Lisbon treaty is basically 98% of the EU constitution being voted away massivly by the French and Dutch two years ago. It's still retains 98% of it's content, but stuff like the anthem, the flag and the word 'constitution' have been removed. They renamed it 'treaty', so based on wording it didn't need to go for a referendum in countries, but could just be ratified as such.
The Lisbon treaty is actually a hefty 60 pages slimmer then the original constitution document. It does however contain 8500 more words. How did they manage that? Just make the font smaller, so the document looks smaller and less intimidating. That does not take away anything from the content tho.
The highlights of the treaty?
* Establishment of a 'European President'
* Establishment of an EU minister of foreign matters
* EU law to overrule national law when in conflict
* Removal of some veto rights to make governing the EU easier
* The creation of an EU police force
* The creation of an EU army force
* Changes made to the acceptance and blocking of laws
* A downgrade in number of commissoners to 14 (with 27 countries)
* A restructuring of power at the top
* More EU say in national matters
* Ease the creation of laws (and in the future possible EU taxes)
In essence this is the first step towards a USE (United States of Europe). And the various countries (states) want this politically, as where it's people do not.
It basically takes the treaty apart and explains it a lot more basic.
I specifically am appalled by the bit about power in the EU at 24:15 and the voting on laws which is at 49:30. Although there are numerous other things I cannot agree with. Heck, I don't WANT an EU-president!
Watching that video scares me... And I'm not afraid to say that. I'm afraid of what might happen if they manage to get all that they want in place.
Now the Irish voted no... And what do the higer-ups in the EU do?
Quote:
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said EU member countries who have yet to ratify the Lisbon Treaty should "continue to do so" despite the result of the Irish referendum.
Mr Barroso said the European Union will "respect the outcome of this referendum."
Quote:
Earlier, France's Secretary of State for European Affairs Jean-Pierre Jouyet said Ireland's possible rejection of The Lisbon Treaty should not stop other member states ratifying it.
"The most important thing is that ratification should continue in other countries (if Ireland has voted "No") and I have good reasons to think that the process of ratification will continue," Mr Jouyet told LCI television.
"We would have to see with the Irish at the end of the ratification process how we could make it work and what legal arrangement we could come to."
Quote:
France wants Ireland to hold a new referendum on the European Union reform treaty but the vote should not be rushed, European affairs minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet said Saturday.
"There is no other solution" than a revote in Ireland after it rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum held Thursday, Jouyet told Europe 1 radio.
"But it would be stupid and counter-productive to rush them into re-voting," he added.
The referendum vote against the Lisbon Treaty pitched the whole 27-nation EU into deep turmoil, threatening to derail the latest effort to get EU institutions up and running.
France and Germany have called on EU states to keep the treaty alive by continuing to ratify the text. Thus far, 18 EU member states have ratified it.
Once ratification is completed, Jouyet suggested that negotiations could be held with Ireland to pave the way for a new referendum. France takes over the EU presidency for six months starting July 1.
"The ratification process must be completed," Jouyet said. "And during this period, the Irish will have time to think and see whether, with a few mediations or a request from their part, they can revote."
From the sounds of it the politicians are not giving up and demand this get's voted a 'YES'. A 'NO' is not acceptable. So you get to revote, and revote until you vote what we want you to vote. How democratic... Wonder if they'd have pressed for a revote if the outcome had been 'YES'... So in essence the above means Irelands opinion is thrown aside, and noted as 'stupid' since the Irish clearly have no idea what they're voting on and thus rejected the treaty based on false grounds. Yesterday Ireland got 4 months to come up with a solution to the whole impasse. I however fail to see how this is Irelands problem.
Most people will shoot down a treaty on more then one thing. Sure, there are common things, but with the majority voting against, that means they're most likely against a few things. These will not get resolved by just changing some lines of text. You need to redesign the whole document (again) if you want them to accept it. And that's what they don't want. They did it once before after it got shot down by the French and Dutch, and they just don't want to go through all that again. So they leave the treaty intact, and drop the ball with Ireland. Instead they should sit down again, and redesign the whole thing (and actually do what they're 'payed' for), or better yet: throw it in the fire and atleast create the possibility to have some nice marshmellows because of it.
The treaty is said to make Europe more transparent, efficient and democratic.
So... If it's transparent, we're all perfectly clear on what the treaty is about right? We can safely ignore all the sub-treaties, on sub-treaties that get referenced in paragraphs throughout the document on things that are not included in the document, right? We don't need to be weary of a contract we sign for which we do not have all the small print clearly.
So... if it's efficient, that means that descisions can be taken swiftly. Why would the EU need to take descisions? It started as the EEG. That was just economical partnerships. And it should've stayed that way. But no. They involved politics, and that by default doesn't allow for efficiency. But if we do need efficiency, we just push documents like this through, since waiting for people to make up their minds on it will just waste time and make it less efficient.
So... it's democratic then? Then why the hell does just Ireland get a vote (which they couldn't avoid due to a law in the constitution that demands a vote on anything touching the souvereignty of the nation)? And let it be known they tried up front to avoid a referendum in Ireland at all costs, and investigated the possibilities to ignore the outcome of that referendum. Why not let the other nations vote? Heck, I dare them to let the whole of the EU population vote on this. I'm pretty sure a different picture will emerge then the one pictured by the politicians!
In the mean time all of the nations in the EU 'frown' upon Ireland. Receiving a lot of EU funding, appearantly taking Ireland from one of the poorest countries to one of the wealthiest, and then 'thanking' Europe like this. So if you get economical support, you are to just throw caution into the wind, and just run after what they tell you blindly? So while the 'politicians' of the various countries frown upon Ireland, the 'people' of those same nations thank Ireland for standing up for democracy.
I cheered for Ireland as the treaty was shot down, and looking at the site here, and reading the responses all from over Europe, I'm definitly not alone in that sentiment.
__________________
2002 GT Ford Mustang V8 4.6L Satin Silver
... Pony far away from home ...
How many countries still have to hold their own referendum, Neko?
For that matter, do most of the nations even REQUIRE a vote of the general population?
This thing looks like a power grab on a mammoth scale to me - and that power is being transferred from the individual and his native land to what is essentially a brand new super-government.
You folks should notice the problems WE have with our very own super-government!
Its the nature of giant, distant governments to lack the give-and-take you get from your own, local govenment. And it is also their nature to suck more and more power from you and your local government as they grow and grow and grow...
You are absolutely correct to be thanking the Irish. I would hope that other countries will follow their lead.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
How many countries still have to hold their own referendum, Neko?
Simple... None. Ireland only got it's referendum because of the Irish constitutional requirement of a vote among the people when surrendering (part of) their sovereignty is part of the equation.
Quote:
For that matter, do most of the nations even REQUIRE a vote of the general population?
The removal of the word 'constitution' and replacing it with the word 'treaty' makes all the difference. Something constitutional has a strong connotation with voting. A treaty is just an agreement between nations and doesn't require the voting. So in essence the French and Dutch atleast see their NO vote two years back get ground underfoot. The ratifications here and in the other 25 nations go by parliament, and for some reason those people do NOT listen to the stories they get from the society. The people say no, the parliament says yes.
The story back then (on the constitutional vote) was that on just 1 (one) NO vote, the constitution would be dead. France voted NON, and yet there was still talk of it being salvagable. Then the dutch threw their NEE at the thing, and we'd all expected it to be over, done with, buried, and forgotten. As we see now, no such thing. 98% of the text (or atleast the content) is the same as the thing we voted away 2 years ago. Our government however isn't showing a spine, and is just going along with it.
Quote:
This thing looks like a power grab on a mammoth scale to me - and that power is being transferred from the individual and his native land to what is essentially a brand new super-government.
Watched that movie-link I gave you eh? That's some scary stuff right there.
Quote:
You folks should notice the problems WE have with our very own super-government!
Picture this: America has laws, so do states. Some allow for homosexual marriages, or even death penalties, while others do not. Say for instance that the American law overall decides that homosexual marriages and death penalties should be allowed nation wide. Your state law regarding these issues will be abolished, and you WILL adhere to the nations laws. So while your state doesn't allow for a death penalty to be executed, you being falsely accused now view the very real threat of death.
While that doesn't cause too much issues in the present situation (I suppose, I don't know), the road is cleared for new laws... So what if a law got passed that stated that the nation was allowed to tap ALL internet traffic? All your e-mails, all your downloads, all your comments and all your bank transactions getting looked at by the government. And even if it was illegal in your state, that law just got superceded. You have no say in the matter.
The movie indicates the passing and blocking of laws based on population. Lets see now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population . Do I really need to tell you how certain smaller states will not like this?
Atleast you can choose your president. If you watched that movie, you'd have seen we do not ever get that luxury.
And that's just laws... You have 52 states, you'd have 52 seats in a central parliament. One to represent each state (not true, but follow me here). Now that seat-count gets reduced to 30 seats. So 22 states permanently have NO say in descisions.
Fine, it works on a rotation basis, but this does allow for pushing through stuff that is not nessecarily good for all. You can disagree, but even then be denied the right to have your state vote a negative on the issue.
Even if next year you're back in a voting position, that still wouldn't give you the possibility to call back the earlier passed vote.
Quote:
Its the nature of giant, distant governments to lack the give-and-take you get from your own, local govenment. And it is also their nature to suck more and more power from you and your local government as they grow and grow and grow...
The thing is... the local government is LETTING them do that. It's the people that disagree! We've dropped countless comments on the internet, in e-mail, in interviews and whatnot to inform the government of what the people say and think. The government is supposed to be there to represent the people. And for some reason the government is ignoring the people and going on ahead.
Quote:
You are absolutely correct to be thanking the Irish. I would hope that other countries will follow their lead.
Sofar only Czech seems to be of the mind to not ratify the thing. The dutch 2nd parliament has already ratified it, and the 1st parliament should be ratifying it somewhere around July 8th. I hope the 1st parliament will shoot it down, but for some reason I doubt it...
I said it nicely in a recent post on a dutch forum. Currently the Eurobarometer appearantly investigated why the irish voted no. Seems the irish mostly voted no because they weren't sufficiently informed.
Basically the yes-camp only says it's 'good' for the country to vote yes. The no-camp adds loads of tangible arguments to the table. So it's to the yes-camp to belay those arguments, come with tangable stuff as to why the vote should be yes, and to clarify their standpoint. Which they do not do.
Why? Most likely because this will increase knowledge on the treaty, and show it's ugly shadow-side. And once that side is seen, it's more likely that more people will vote no. They want the people to remain ignorant of the treaty. They're more likely to vote yes that way. If they even GET a vote. They do not want voting going on on this, because they're scared to death it'll get voted away AGAIN. Like I said before: They checked if they could circumvent the referendum in Ireland, and when they couldn't they checked to see if they could just ignore the result. And that was WAY before the actual referendum took place! So much for the democracy the treaty is supposed to instill within Europe.
Right now they make it sound as if the treaty just got voted away because people were ignorant of it. While an amount of no-votes might be due to ignorance, it isn't a solid based fact that once the people are made knowledgable about the item, they'll immidiatly switch from a no-vote to a yes-vote. Knowing what you vote on could just as easily result in a no-vote. The only difference being the latter one is a founded no-vote.
__________________
2002 GT Ford Mustang V8 4.6L Satin Silver
... Pony far away from home ...
We are getting closer to the scenario you posit every day. Creeping tyranny.
I caught the part about how unequal representation of the various nations in the new government would run. The large, populous nations will rule, and the small countries will be vassal states.
The danger of this was foreseen by our founding fathers, who created a seperate Senate where every State (no matter how small, and some of them are REALLY small) has the same 2 Senators.
The other half of the Federal legislature is based on population, so the larger states dominate there, but it is balanced by the Senate.
If you guys HAVE to do this thing (I think its a big mistake, trying to go this route, inherently flawed)... Push for a bicambric (2 part) legislature, with one half based upon a representative (or two) from each country, serving on a permanent basis. This will help balance the danger of the major hitters (France, Germany, Italy, etc) forging alliances and putting through agendas that are damaging to the smaller country's concerns.
The stuff about anyone who disagrees with the treaty being "misinformed" is the classic gambit used by power brokers to stop debate. "I'm wasting my time talking about this, since you are so ignorant". Elitist snobs! We have this same thing happen here as well.
All I can say is keep up the good fight! If we could roll back our own super government to a point before the dawn of the 20th century, it would put us about where your lords and masters over there are trying to put you...
Its like the old tale about looking at the mother to see what the daughter will look like in 20 years!
If they want to see their future, look at our problems in Washington!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neko-
Picture this: America has laws, so do states. Some allow for homosexual marriages, or even death penalties, while others do not. Say for instance that the American law overall decides that homosexual marriages and death penalties should be allowed nation wide. Your state law regarding these issues will be abolished, and you WILL adhere to the nations laws.
While that doesn't cause too much issues in the present situation (I suppose, I don't know), the road is cleared for new laws... So what if a law got passed that stated that the nation was allowed to tap ALL internet traffic? All your e-mails, all your downloads, all your comments and all your bank transactions getting looked at by the government. And even if it was illegal in your state, that law just got superceded.
Atleast you can choose your president. If you watched that movie, you'd have seen we do not ever get that luxury.
And that's just laws... You have 52 states, you'd have 52 seats in a central parliament. One to represent each state (not true, but follow me here). Now that seat-count gets reduced to 30 seats. So 22 states permanently have NO say in descisions.
Fine, it works on a rotation basis, but this does allow for pushing through stuff that is not nessecarily good for all. You can disagree, but even then be denied the right to have your state vote a negative on the issue.
Even if next year you're back in a voting position, that still wouldn't give you the possibility to call back the earlier passed vote.
The thing is... the local government is LETTING them do that. It's the people that disagree! We've dropped countless comments on the internet, in e-mail, in interviews and whatnot to inform the government of what the people say and think. The government is supposed to be there to represent the people. And for some reason the government is ignoring the people and going on ahead.
Sofar only Czech seems to be of the mind to not ratify the thing. The dutch 2nd parliament has already ratified it, and the 1st parliament should be ratifying it somewhere around July 8th. I hope the 1st parliament will shoot it down, but for some reason I doubt it...
I said it nicely in a recent post on a dutch forum. Seems the irish mostly voted no because they weren't sufficiently informed.
Basically the yes-camp only says it's 'good' for the country to vote yes. The no-camp adds loads of tangible arguments to the table. So it's to the yes-camp to belay those arguments, come with tangable stuff as to why the vote should be yes, and to clarify their standpoint. Which they do not do.
Why? Most likely because this will increase knowledge on the treaty, and show it's ugly shadow-side. And once that side is seen, it's more likely that more people will vote no. They want the people to remain ignorant of the treaty. They're more likely to vote yes that way. If they even GET a vote. They do not want voting going on on this, because they're scared to death it'll get voted away AGAIN. So much for the democracy the treaty is supposed to instill within Europe.
Right now they make it sound as if the treaty just got voted away because people were ignorant of it. While an amount of no-votes might be due to ignorance, it isn't a solid based fact that once the people are made knowledgable about the item, they'll immidiatly switch from a no-vote to a yes-vote. Knowing what you vote on could just as easily result in a no-vote. The only difference being the latter one is a founded no-vote.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
I edited the above post to clarify a few things, and add an extra bit of linking info.
Quote:
We are getting closer to the scenario you posit every day. Creeping tyranny.
I'm starting to get some dictatorial feelings with the whole deal. And that isn't a good thing.
Quote:
I caught the part about how unequal representation of the various nations in the new government would run. The large, populous nations will rule, and the small countries will be vassal states.
The danger of this was foreseen by our founding fathers, who created a seperate Senate where every State (no matter how small, and some of them are REALLY small) has the same 2 Senators.
The other half of the Federal legislature is based on population, so the larger states dominate there, but it is balanced by the Senate.
Not so here, And we do not get a say in it. The politicians just blindly charge ahead.
Quote:
If you guys HAVE to do this thing (I think its a big mistake, trying to go this
route, inherently flawed)...
You're telling the wrong guy. I'm convinced it's a mistake! So is most of the EU population.
Quote:
Push for a bicambric (2 part) legislature, with one half based upon a representative (or two) from each country, serving on a permanent basis. This will help balance the danger of the major hitters (France, Germany, Italy, etc) forging alliances and putting through agendas that are damaging to the smaller country's concerns.
Not gonna happen. That would require the politicians to sit down, and rediscuss the treaty. And they do NOT want to do that. Basically the treaty stays as-is (without the above 'solution'), and the problem for ratification is now Irelands. So the 6 million irish people are being frowned upon by the 486 million other EU people.
Atleast, that is what the politicians are saying. I'm thinking it's more like 200 million people frowning upon ireland, the other 286 million are cheering.
But Europe isn't prepared to let this thing be voted on on a European-wide referendum. Mostly because (like I said) they KNOW it will get shot down.
Quote:
The stuff about anyone who disagrees with the treaty being "misinformed" is the classic gambit used by power brokers to stop debate. "I'm wasting my time talking about this, since you are so ignorant". Elitist snobs! We have this same thing happen here as well.
Point being: not even the politicians understand the thing. It refers to sub-treaties of sub-treaties of documents that aren't included in the document. So it's referring mostly, and just putting forth changes that on their own might look harmless enough, but if you take the referring documentation along, suddenly some things get a different meaning or cause unforseen (by the people that is) effects!
Quote:
All I can say is keep up the good fight! If we could roll back our own super government to a point before the dawn of the 20th century, it would put us about where your lords and masters over there are trying to put you...
Problem being: Everyone complains, but there is no certralised place to deposit our problems. Not on an EU level and not on a national level. There's little hold at the moment for actually organising a structured opposition against the proceedings.
Sure, most hope this'll delay the damned thing till the next elections. I'm hoping it'll be slaughter between the various political parties, and we'll finally get a government that does what it's supposed to do: represent the people! And even then it's quite well possible that some promises have been made that are to be honoured
Quote:
Its like the old tale about looking at the mother to see what the daughter will look like in 20 years!
If they want to see their future, look at our problems in Washington!
They don't care about Washington. They feel that the USA and Russia are both big players, and feel that the EU needs to be a big player to on the global playing field.
Mark my words... If this comes to pass, I foresee that eventually there will be a plan hatched to implement a World Government, which will supercede all other governments. Now there is nightmarish stuff... It is that I can't abandon the planet (yet), but you'd be sorely tempted to.
__________________
2002 GT Ford Mustang V8 4.6L Satin Silver
... Pony far away from home ...
The UN has been pushing the "one world" government thing for a long time. Such prospects REALLY make certain politicians salivate.
Should the EU manage to pull off this "treaty" coup, the odds that something similar might be installed over an even larger area are greatly increased.
The more power is centralized, the less freedom for the individual.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
Should the EU manage to pull off this "treaty" coup, the odds that something similar might be installed over an even larger area are greatly increased.
Which should make all of you weary as hell.
__________________
2002 GT Ford Mustang V8 4.6L Satin Silver
... Pony far away from home ...
The UK falls to the EU? 
